• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

NAT and VPN - "masquerade" as another subnet via VPN?

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved NAT
3 Posts 2 Posters 927 Views
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • K
    KimmoJ
    last edited by Oct 7, 2016, 7:59 AM

    Sorry for the fuzzy terminology here, I'm a generalist rather than a network specialist -  but in a nutshell this is my issue:

    We have a VPN connection to a partner who serves a number of other clients via VPN's. The private LAN subnet we use (and that all our servers etc are on, making changes somewhat non-trivial) was already used by one of their other clients, so they assigned us a different private IP range for the purposes of this communication.

    This was set up on our existing old Cisco (by a consultant) so that it "translates" our existing private network (192.168.xx.0/24) to the one they assigned us (172.xxx.xxx.0/24) on the fly through the VPN connection, so we had to do nothing to our workstations or servers. So far so good.

    However, now I need to replicate this exact setup in the pfSense cluster we're setting up now. Where should I be looking, Outbound NAT?

    I'd really appreciate if someone could hit the high points of how to do this, and if I missed a resource that already describes what I'm looking for - my apologies, my google-fu failed if so.

    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
    • D
      Derelict LAYER 8 Netgate
      last edited by Oct 7, 2016, 8:18 AM

      The BINAT settings in the phase 2 entry of the IPsec to them.

      Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
      A comprehensive network diagram is worth 10,000 words and 15 conference calls.
      DO NOT set a source address/port in a port forward or firewall rule unless you KNOW you need it!
      Do Not Chat For Help! NO_WAN_EGRESS(TM)

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • K
        KimmoJ
        last edited by Oct 7, 2016, 8:26 AM

        Ohh, of course, it would be in connection with the tunnel rather than NAT.  :-[ Thanks! Appreciate it. :D

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        3 out of 3
        • First post
          3/3
          Last post
        Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
          This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
          consent.not_received